Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: Dec 6, 2003 8:26am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: End audio-format trading > have mp3s too

BTW given the general subject of educating the "trading pool" about quality issues, here's an important related issue:

An interesting aspect to our overall trading community is it isn't just 1 bulk trading pool, it's actually a collection of sub-pools, sort of grouped by artist or affiliated artists. Fans of different bands can be in several sub-pools at once.

But those sub-pools seem to have different perceptions of the problem of purity with respect to say, the chance of lossy files leaking into the trading chain. For instance, part of why I've been kinda boggled by the vehement anti-mp3 response by some here is that I'm a Deadhead, and in that realm mp3 has coexisted peacefully alongside lossless for years (see gdlive.com). No Deadhead stamps their txt files no-mp3- there just doesn't seem to be a need. Same with my MMW trading community, as far as the file-stamping. And I'm not a Spearhead fan (yet!), but a patron recently posted elsewhere to this board about the coexistence of mp3 and lossless in the Spearhead community.

So while I have you here, nmculbreth, may I ask what bands you tape/trade? Do you see a particular problem with quality in your sub-pool(s), such that it calls for you to combat that in your text files?

To other tapers who are very much into the instruction-stamping on info files, I ask the same: What bands are you taping? Are you taping/trading in particular subpools where there is a problem, or perceived problem, with traders in that pool "cheating" on your purity?

I'm asking for more info, because I'm trying to figure out what makes some sub-pools different, and why/whether some communities might need even stronger "quality education" than others. Thanks for any feedback!

Diana

This post was modified by hamilton on 2003-12-06 16:26:26

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Erich Date: Dec 6, 2003 5:21pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: End audio-format trading > have mp3s too

Ah, Diana. I see the can of worms has been opened :) I must say, to anyone reading my comments, if any of these opinions offend you, then please, lighten up. So it begins:

I'll start with what you said secondly regarding the sub cultures within the taping / trading culture as a whole. This includes seeders that have *dont encode to MP3* and seeders that do not tarnish their txt files with a disclaimer of such sort. As you mentioned, there have been communities that embraced lossless formats yet live side by side with MP3s, such as deadheads and MMW fans. This means that the problem is NOT within the actual trader base. It becomes pretty evident that education IS possible to the relative masses, so long as people are willing to educate.

As a member of the DMB community for nearly 5 years, I see the sub-culture that does choose to exert power over education. Instead of teaching traders how to use rational when it comes to their choice of formats, people take the path of "do as I say". Many times when someone asks why MP3s arent traded or used or whatever, one of if not the first response out of most peoples mouths are "cause the taper requested it". Now, granted, I have seen many people who honestly cant grasp certain concepts and are therefor more likely to do as someone says than use actual reasoning when it comes to things of this sort, but I feel its a major condescension to the majority when youre told to do something without being given a reason half the time (if a newbie reads the disclaimer, how does he know why its there?).

Being a cynical person when it comes to humanity as a whole, I see many tapers within the DMB community as people that have power and know it. Hence the very abrasive attitudes, which have been evident even here, when the lineage of their work comes into the slightest question. They know very certain that people will do as they say, and thats why when the idea was proposed on this forum of including disclaimers that are appended with ***and do not upload to archive.org**, it should be noted that there will be people who will adhere to this. Unfortunately, I feel many people within the community are more at ease doing as they say so as not to piss off those who are higher in the community food chain. Whatever it takes to not be cut off from the recordings, you know?

Now, about your first point:

While I belive trading lossless file sets is the best way to trade, giving the opportunity to burn a flawless audio from the same source at will, I do not think audio trading should be frowned upon in order to achieve that. If any disclaimer should be on any txt file, it should be something along the lines of:

Please Note: To learn more about lossless trading and how to preserve the quality of this recording for future listeners, please visit {url}.

or:

NOTE: If you enjoyed this recording, learn how to keep it in perfect conditions so others can enjoy it as well: {url}

This implies no power of authority from any party. This right off the bat is a simple way to allow regular traders and listeners the rights of thought and choice they deserve. That fosters a better community spirit, one thats not marred by the horrible "because they say so" lemming mentality. It also gives them a place to learn WHY people ask that MP3s not be converted to audio then traded, which is automatically a step up from just telling them what to do.

Asking people to not convert to audio to trade is a bad idea, and not just cause of the freedom of choice thats taken away wrongfully. When cassettes traders were introduced to cds, they had basically what we have now with lossless, one source (the cd) that we can flawlessly copy to cassette infinite times if other people want it. We didnt tell people not to trade cassettes, they just stopped on their own due to its own extinction. My point: allow people the opportunity to educate themselves on the matter fully, and they will chose what fits their needs as a trader or listener best. Whatever happens from there, whether trading cds goes the way of the cassette and in its place lossless trades, or things just become easier for anyone with those choices, is only up to time to tell.

~ Erich

This post was modified by Erich on 2003-12-07 01:21:40

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: Dec 7, 2003 12:11am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: End audio-format trading > have mp3s too

Erich, I commend you for a well-written post without R-rated language. ;) (just teasing ya there)

Your point of view about the more gentle, educational-resource style teaching is one I wholly endorse! That's the way I certainly do it. "Teach a man to fish" etc.

The reason I'm bringing up this idea of using unilateral no audio-format statements, is because as we've observed, there *are* people who want to be unilateral about things. They're the ones who stamp simple prohibitions on things.

I'm trying to educate unilateralists as well, that if they really want to be unilateral about purity, the no-mp3 idea is *not* a good way to go about it. For a unilateralist, no-audio-format would be *the* best demand to make, to enforce purity.

Erich, you make an interesting observation- from your perspective a lot of the vehemence and unilateralism is coming from the DMB-centered trading pool in particular. To any DMBish folks reading: What would you makes that region different? Is it a psychological difference, in the fandom? Have the pool's tapers to some extent trained *themselves* to be unilateral in this particular way? It can't be a problem stemming from the effect of a large-sized pool, since the Deadhead trading pool is at least as big as the DMB one, likely bigger.

What I'm looking for is, is there some way to work with/within the "troubled" sub-pool(s) in particular, to help make things better and a win-win for as many people as possible?

Besides the DMB-centered pool, are there other sub-pools with either particular trading problems- or particular unilateralism?

More feedback please? We could get somewhere here!

BTW wrt to how the archive intersects with this particular "unilateral-flavored" sub-pool, obviously DMB is not even represented here. And a sort of affiliated artist who may share the pool, Howie Day (at least I know there are some crossover fans and tapers), has a unilateral no-mp3 note right in his policy, so of course no mp3s would ever appear here on Howie recordings. Same for other possibly related artists who use Howie's policy.

Diana

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Erich Date: Dec 7, 2003 3:08pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: End audio-format trading > have mp3s too

The reason I'm bringing up this idea of using unilateral no audio-format statements, is because as we've observed, there *are* people who want to be unilateral about things. They're the ones who stamp simple prohibitions on things.

I'm trying to educate unilateralists as well, that if they really want to be unilateral about purity, the no-mp3 idea is *not* a good way to go about it. For a unilateralist, no-audio-format would be *the* best demand to make, to enforce purity.


As much as i agree with this theoreticaly, I cant take a pro stand directly. Yeah, you cant change the fact that unilateralism is prefered by some people who find it more difficult to make their own decisions, but i can't support anything that, in essence, creates a defined heiarchy between fans. By appending rules that arent in the trading policy, it assumes power, and even if that power isnt intended in any way negativly, it drives a deeper wedge between the "average" fan and anyone who is "more". If you were to change the disclaimer to rule out a different format, you're in essance becoming the same type of unilateralist that youre educating against, even if your method is, in theory, better.

That in itself also raises the question of if your theory is better in the first place. Well, if you can imagine how many people you cut off when you say no-MP3s, imagine the amounts of people that only use audio and dont know how to work MP3s to begine with, and just want a cd of the show they went to and thats it.

Erich, you make an interesting observation- from your perspective a lot of the vehemence and unilateralism is coming from the DMB-centered trading pool in particular. To any DMBish folks reading: What would you makes that region different? Is it a psychological difference, in the fandom? Have the pool's tapers to some extent trained *themselves* to be unilateral in this particular way? It can't be a problem stemming from the effect of a large-sized pool, since the Deadhead trading pool is at least as big as the DMB one, likely bigger.

I'll address this question by bringing in a point made by the poster before me:

I don't think the DMB trading community is the way it is because of the tapers, it's just the direction the band has chosen to go. When a band goes from a jamband to a pop band, those two different groups of fans will clash.

Its a very very solid point. DMB is a people's band. Theyre out to give as many people what they want as they can, and so the scope of the fans is far broader than an Umphry's show. That causes a mix of people that know what theyre doing trade wise, and those than know nothin from nothin. This causes the people who are in the know to become less personable and more rule oriented, not so much to shut people out but to allow for the largest group of people to know what's what before they come by and "need" the show they went to 4 hours ago.

But theres also a different psycology involved with many of the tapers in regards to their tapes, as well. As im sure youve noticed from the last discussion, a lot of the tapers care more about THEIR tapes than the people listening to them. This isnt inherantly a bad thing, but its most likely the reason its taken as a personal offense to them when you dont do what they want you to do with it (i remember specificaly a taper held in high regard in the dmb community saying to me, and I quote, "dont bite the hand that feeds you"). You can see a clear example of it here:

http://db.etree.org/shnlist.php?artist=6&year=2003

where the rule cannot be broken unless specificaly said so in the txt file, ie. the taper's permission. by adding that little snippet to override the MP3 thing, its basically saying that the tapers permission is more important than the MP3s or the liniage.

This may also explain why indevidual tapers asked for their tapes specificaly to be removed from the archive in the case of MP3 conversion. It basically says, "do what you want with the others, but mine are to be treated in this way and this way only".

So each side feeds the atitude of the other. One side knows nothing, and therefor is very willing to just do as theyre told to get what they want. One side holds more regard for the tapes than for the listeners, making it very easy for them to say exactly what they want and how it has to be done.

BTW wrt to how the archive intersects with this particular "unilateral-flavored" sub-pool, obviously DMB is not even represented here. And a sort of affiliated artist who may share the pool, Howie Day (at least I know there are some crossover fans and tapers), has a unilateral no-mp3 note right in his policy, so of course no mp3s would ever appear here on Howie recordings. Same for other possibly related artists who use Howie's policy.

Im not as familiar with Howie, though I know hes a big DMB fan. I am familiar with Jason Green, a recently activiated musician that also has a no-MP3 rule in his taping/trading policy. Hes definatly a DMB fan, and one that I would assume a second generation unilateralist. someone whos main trading experiences have most likely been under the **no-MP3** blanket, so its understandable he takes that stance with his own music.

On a different note, to give an example of something which i feel is a better way to address the txt issue...

The archive uses the RSS format for syndication. Under the RSS 2.0 specifications, theres an optional field you can use in the channel field, called <docs>. heres the link to the specification:

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss

and heres the docs description:

<docs> : A URL that points to the documentation for the format used in the RSS file. It's probably a pointer to this page. It's for people who might stumble across an RSS file on a Web server 25 years from now and wonder what it is.

You can use this concept as an analogy to mine. Include a link to documentation for the purpose of educating whoever is reading about whatever txt file theyre looking at. This holds true especialy for archival purposes, when future generations will look at the MP3 disclaimer and scratch their head, much like current generations may not understand MAXEL II 90 MIN ONLY, STRETCH TAPE OUT FIRST!

This post was modified by Erich on 2003-12-07 23:08:22

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: Dec 7, 2003 10:35pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: End audio-format trading > have mp3s too

You can see a clear example of it here:

http://db.etree.org/shnlist.php?artist=6&year=2003

where the rule cannot be broken unless specificaly said so in the txt file, ie. the taper's permission. by adding that little snippet to override the MP3 thing,


Since you bring that url up, for anyone reading along I'd just like to point out as the sort of "Mom" of that whole shnlist.php area: Each group of band pages has admin(s) put in charge, who can put whatever the heck they feel like in the headers of those tables. Even if it's irrational or unreasonable. ;) Just because you see something up in the headers, it doesn't mean it's a reflection of the band policy, or even a consensus of the whole trading or taping pool. It's a personal statement of the shncirc admins.

In fact, that particular header has been a topic of concern to a couple of us admins there for other bands. We just haven't brought it to the point of addressing it directly yet.

This post was modified by hamilton on 2003-12-08 06:35:43

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: Dec 9, 2003 10:34pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: End audio-format trading > have mp3s too

If you were to change the disclaimer to rule out a different format, you're in essance becoming the same type of unilateralist that youre educating against, even if your method is, in theory, better.

True, I would be uncomfortable being a file-stamper my own self. :) So, how about this, narrowing the idea to apply only to people who are *already* unilateralist file-stampers:

If you're going to make a prohibition in your text file, make it be a mightier prohibition, against audio-format trading, not against the smaller mp3 issue, which is the much smaller part of the problem.

Others can just carry on as usual with other tapes.

That in itself also raises the question of if your theory is better in the first place. Well, if you can imagine how many people you cut off when you say no-MP3s, imagine the amounts of people that only use audio and dont know how to work MP3s to begine with, and just want a cd of the show they went to and thats it.

Well, for the people who are personally serious about forcing/enforcing the quality of their tapes, it's indeed all about cutting off the avenues to lesser quality. As we've seen in the discussion as it relates to LMA in particular, it's about forcing as many people as possible into dealing with lossless (even non-traders), for the good of all.

If traders have to wait and train themselves in lossless formats instead of getting an audio CD handed to them in a trade, then that should not be an issue, it should be a good thing for trading. Indeed, that "wait for it, and learn lossless" idea is the same rationale some people have been advancing here for *non-trader* patrons to the LMA. It seems fairer that if you're going to force people into that kind of mode, force only the ones who are doing the trading, since they're the ones who may affect quality.

From unilateralists' perspective, the *fewer* people that have lesser-quality trading experiences going on, the better. That's what this is all about. Or am I wrong about that?

So, what I'm trying to do is shift the paradigm *for the unilateralists* as much as for anyone else, to get them to reanalyze their own goals and see better ways of accomplishing them.

If you're a person unyielding enough about quality arguments to make an explicit demand in your txt file, then shift the position of your argument to a higher level. Go for the true gusto, make a stronger demand, make the trading chain for your particular tape purer as a result.

This post was modified by Diana Hamilton on 2003-12-10 06:34:09

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: thoman8r Date: Dec 9, 2003 9:55am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: End audio-format trading > have mp3s too

The fact is if you extracted and burned a compact disc 1000 times it still would not even approach the level of degradation by compressing that same show to a high bit rate mp3 once. While DAE often isn't bit perfect losing a handful of bits out of millions is a lot different than HACKING OFF a significant portion of a file.

If nobody traded cd-audio shows would the mp3 problem go away? Yeah, probably, but let's face it that is not going to happen any time soon. Sometimes you've got to pick your battles. The trading of CD-audio shows is prevalent. Right now the trading of mp3 shows is negligible. This is directly thanks to the years of very hard work by a group of people that cared about traders in the community having only quality sources (Erich are you listening? that's right it's not about a power trip brother). The proliferation of mp3s on this archive is threatening to erase that hard work.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: Dec 9, 2003 10:33pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Modify blanket mp3 statements

OK Dave, if you're still resolved to "pick your battle" specifically over mp3 getting into the trading pool (since you apparently feel a larger war against audio-format is unwinnable), let's look at how you can change tactics and fight your more specific battle the best.

Right now in a typical txt file of yours
http://etree14.archive.org/0/audio/rr2003-03-28.sr71.shnf/rr2003-03-28.txt
you have written
PLEASE DO NOT ENCODE THIS SHOW INTO MP3 FORMAT

Now, wouldn't it be more effective, both as an indirect educational tool and as a pointed I-said-so direction to the traders who are your target, to write this instead:

PLEASE DO NOT ENCODE THIS SHOW INTO MP3 FORMAT FOR TRADING PURPOSES

If you wanted to make it a bit more educational re trading, you could make it longer about why that's not good. After all, you don't care what non-traders do with your files (because it's not about a power trip), correct?

For instance, an archive patron who's been turned on to Spearhead :) passed along this notice he found at a Spearhead site, that works toward the same educational aim as you are:

"MP3 FILES

The MP3 files on this site are for
PERSONAL and PREVIEW USE ONLY!!

The main purpose of the MP3s on this site is for you to preview a
show before you download a SHN file.

Feel free to download them to play on your computer or MP3 player. If
you choose to make an Audio CD, please do not trade it with other
collectors of live music!

Why is this important?"

[ snip of good following explanation, you can see full text at
http://www.loveisdashit.com/dlguide.htm ]"

I could see LMA having some similar directions were it to go with supplemental mp3s, to help education of the "problem" demographic, the traders.

So to Dave or any other no-MP3 tapers currently without the "for trading purposes" part written on your no-MP3 statements: Is this a reasonable change to ask you to make, and if not, why not?

I still think together we can find some common ground here! :)

This post was modified by Diana Hamilton on 2003-12-10 06:33:21

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: thoman8r Date: Dec 9, 2003 10:53pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Modify blanket mp3 statements

So to Dave or any other no-MP3 tapers currently without the "for trading purposes" part written on your no-MP3 statements: Is this a reasonable change to ask you to make, and if not, why not?

Yes, very reasonable. In fact, I have already begun doing this, if you check some of the more recent shows I've uploaded. This was always my intention, like I've always said I don't care if you encode to mp3 to listen to it on your computer or your ipod or whatever, hell I do that too. It became apparent to me during the last round of mp3 discussion that my text files were misleading though, and to clear up any confusion they now read "Please do not trade in mp3 format."

Also, I like the example explanation you give in your post and may in fact start using something similar myself.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: Dec 9, 2003 11:26pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Modify blanket mp3 statements

Excellent, Dave! :)

So how about this for a possible middle ground:

-Put "no MP3 for trading" statements on tapes instead of just "no MP3"
-LMA can make supplemental MP3 of these kinds of tapes since as a library they're not trading (void where band prohibits, natch- PMB, Howie etc)
-LMA couples that with plenty of strong cautionary notes about the use of their lossy formats in trading (like loveisdashit does)

If you do want to update some of your less-focused statements that are already up (like the RR item), feel free to put an error report on items. Changing txt files is a backlogged admin task *but* it will go onto an easy to track to-do list for file admins.

BTW if this focused and more reasonable no-MP3-*trade* model is appealing, I could see even more traders using this kind of no-trade statement, so you get that mass-action effect on the trading culture.

This post was modified by Diana Hamilton on 2003-12-10 07:26:59

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: thoman8r Date: Dec 9, 2003 11:47pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Modify blanket mp3 statements

-LMA can make supplemental MP3 of these kinds of tapes since as a library they're not trading (void where band prohibits, natch- PMB, Howie etc)

See here is where you lose me. The fact is that people are going to download these shows in mp3 and trade them no matter what the info file says, and I'm not ok with that.

You might say, "well people would do that with shns" but they wouldn't. If a person already has a lossless version of a show they aren't going to needlessly compress it to mp3 and decompress it just to trade it. They'd just trade the shn version. And yeah, as others have said the effort you have to put into downloading and converting a show in shn plays into it too. But if people see there are "shortcuts" like downloading the show in mp3, some of them are going to use them no matter what anyone says. That's why putting disclaimers on the mp3s are useless - it's the people we know will ignore them that we're concerned about.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: Dec 10, 2003 12:42am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Modify blanket mp3 statements

Not lost, just back to the crux of the issue that is causing so much discomfort:

*Besides* tapers asking traders not to trade in mp3- a reasonable request, certain ones are *also* separately asking that LMA serve as an enforced gatekeeper for the trading culture (by having only lossless), a less reasonable request.

It's the responsibility of traders to keep to their standards within their community, ones that *can* be met with sufficient education, as you've seen to date. You say the mp3 problem has been minimal, so traders have therefore been heeding your message, correct? If they are listening already, why wouldn't they keep listening? It's a disservice to traders to think they'll "go crazy" en masse when they've been paying attention before.

In sharp contrast, I would say the Archive has a higher responsibility beyond just to traders. It has responsibilities to bands and to the larger public.

To the extent that it serves traders as well (not gatekeeps over them), the Archive can work in conjunction with the "priestly" people of the trading culture (Brewster's word there) in pushing education.

That's in addition to *already* serving traders by having a full range of lossless choices- permanently, with free (to us traders, not the Archive) storage and bandwidth. It's another hand that feeds us. ;)

This post was modified by Diana Hamilton on 2003-12-10 08:42:31

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: thoman8r Date: Dec 10, 2003 1:31am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Modify blanket mp3 statements

*Besides* tapers asking traders not to trade in mp3- a reasonable request, certain ones are *also* separately asking that LMA serve as an enforced gatekeeper for the trading culture (by having only lossless), a less reasonable request.

On the contrary, I think most tapers are only asking that you remove their shows if the LMA chooses to go in the direction of mp3s. I don't think that's unreasonable. Nobody is telling the LMA what to do, only making them aware of the consequences of a move toward hosting mp3s. Please don't read that as a threat, as it's not intended as such. It's just a difference in opinion.

This is a classic example of you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want the people who feel so strongly about not having mp3s on the archive to continue to host their shows here, then you won't have mp3s. If you want to have mp3s, then you are going to lose those people. That's pretty much the bottom line. Tapers have very valid reasons for not wanting to participate in a site that hosts mp3s. We understand your rationale for having mp3s, we just don't think the benefits come close to outweighing the cost.

This post was modified by thoman8r on 2003-12-10 09:31:29

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: Dec 10, 2003 1:26am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Modify blanket mp3 statements

Thanks for the back and forth, Dave! If we haven't reached a happy medium in this thread (yet?), I think we've at least laid out the bare issues with high signal to noise. :)

Meanwhile, no matter what path the LMA ends up taking, as a trading community member I would definitely like to get more folks on board with changing their "no mp3" stamps to "no mp3 for trading". Not as a LMA thing, as a trading culture thing. If you hang out in areas where there are "no-mp3" people, please do try to pitch the rephrasing to them as a better educational tool. Thanks!

This post was modified by Diana Hamilton on 2003-12-10 09:26:10

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Erich Date: Dec 10, 2003 6:00am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Modify blanket mp3 statements

Id take it one step further. Say the same thing with less opressive language:

*** If you convert this show to MP3, you perminantly damage sound quality. Please trade only the highest quality copy of this recording ***

Yeah, its worth changing and shortening, but I feel it may get the point across better if you explain it within the text file. Traders and listeners alike deserve the respect to be treated as fully capable to make these decisions, instead of being told what to do and not even why. Id even go as far as to say:

If youre going to convert this to mp3, please read this first: {url}

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: Dec 11, 2003 3:57am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Modify blanket mp3 statements

reached a happy medium

See this post now:
http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view.php?id=10746

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Erich Date: Dec 10, 2003 6:14am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Modify blanket mp3 statements

You might say, "well people would do that with shns" but they wouldn't. If a person already has a lossless version of a show they aren't going to needlessly compress it to mp3 and decompress it just to trade it. They'd just trade the shn version. And yeah, as others have said the effort you have to put into downloading and converting a show in shn plays into it too. But if people see there are "shortcuts" like downloading the show in mp3, some of them are going to use them no matter what anyone says. That's why putting disclaimers on the mp3s are useless - it's the people we know will ignore them that we're concerned about.

Youre speaking from the perspective of someone that sees the educated side of the trading community. Ive seen countless newbies ask how to convert lossless to MP3, and mention they dont keep the lossless files on their computer afterwards. theyre too big. People find a way to go back to what theyre compfortable with, regardless of what better alternative you give them. You educate these people all you want, it'll change nothing. And just like you said that disclaimers on MP3s will do nothing for people that willfully ignore, well, disclaimers on lossless sets go the same way.

Regardless of the type of disclaimer, you'll get x% of people that will ignore it. If you at least give a person the oportunity to educate themself, that percentage will go down. There are people that ignore things when theyre not given a reason why. Unfortunatly, regarding all the other people, you'll just have to let go. These people will convert MP3s and record to CD whatever you tell them, cause they just dont have either the patience or learning capacity to handle otherwise. Thats not said with a negative tone, its just that some people cannot learn more than just right click save MP3 as.

On the contrary, I think most tapers are only asking that you remove their shows if the LMA chooses to go in the direction of mp3s. I don't think that's unreasonable. Nobody is telling the LMA what to do, only making them aware of the consequences of a move toward hosting mp3s. Please don't read that as a threat, as it's not intended as such. It's just a difference in opinion

Youre just making an observaton, which is fine. But that brings me back to the observation i was making earlier - why just their tapes? If the tapers were concerned about the trading pool as a whole, wouldnt they try to loby the entire archives contents to try and "save" it from pollution? especialy when they have no defined power over just their recordings anyway, including the ability to take it down from the archive.

Its just a logical inconcistancy to me. How is the tapers "permission" for MP3s going to change the amount of people that are going to sully it up anyway? For example, if someone says "I did not wish for my tape to be MP3ed, so please remove it from the archive", its a preventive measure to "protect", right? So then why do they not wish to "protect" the shows that are given "permission", or the shows that arent explicitly disclaimered and therefor MP3ed by default?

I hope you get what I mean.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: thoman8r Date: Dec 10, 2003 6:54am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Modify blanket mp3 statements

People find a way to go back to what theyre compfortable with, regardless of what better alternative you give them. You educate these people all you want, it'll change nothing. And just like you said that disclaimers on MP3s will do nothing for people that willfully ignore, well, disclaimers on lossless sets go the same way.

I agree but that doesn't mean we have to become enablers. Plus, the problem with shns being too big will fade because space is just getting cheaper and cheaper. Soon that won't be an issue. And once everyone switches to FLAC and more and more portable audio devices start supporting it (some do already I think) it will be even less of a problem.

Youre just making an observaton, which is fine. But that brings me back to the observation i was making earlier - why just their tapes? If the tapers were concerned about the trading pool as a whole, wouldnt they try to loby the entire archives contents to try and "save" it from pollution? especialy when they have no defined power over just their recordings anyway, including the ability to take it down from the archive.

I respect the requests of fellow tapers and if one of them did not care that their tapes were in mp3, there's not much I can do about that even though I disagree with them in principal.

This post was modified by thoman8r on 2003-12-10 14:54:54

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: zachs Date: Dec 10, 2003 7:23am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Modify blanket mp3 statements

Here's a perspective. The number of people using broadband today in the US is roughly equivalent to the literacy rate in US around 1950. Do you suppose that anyone back then suggested that a way to increase access to the library system was to have more picture books? Pandering to the lowest common denominator doesn't help to raise the standards moving forward.
I'm a great example, I started off knowing very little about audio, but had to learn a little to start using the Archive and etree. It lead me to start taping and uploading back to the archive. If I hadn't had that incentive and could have just as easily downloaded mp3's, maybe I would have done nothing else.
It just seems like technology is going to prove mp3s unnecessary. Storage and bandwith are steadily getting cheaper and cheaper. Isn't it short sighted to adopt a lossy technology just so a small portion of the public has faster downloand times and so they won't have to use extremely simple software to deal with .shn and .flac? Do you want to be the ones who populated the world with picture books? You guys set the bar....take the high road.
Many Thanks!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Erich Date: Dec 10, 2003 11:10am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Modify blanket mp3 statements

Here's a perspective. The number of people using broadband today in the US is roughly equivalent to the literacy rate in US around 1950. Do you suppose that anyone back then suggested that a way to increase access to the library system was to have more picture books? Pandering to the lowest common denominator doesn't help to raise the standards moving forward.

You unfortunatly made the wrong choice of analogies.

Two illiterate people come into a library. they ask for "A Christmas Carol", picture book. They do not have it. They walk into another library and see that they have the book, and the librarian tells them "hey, this book is incomplete. Do you want to know the full story?", in which case theyd have to learn to read. The point of a library is to cater to everyone. the point of the library is to get everyone to pick up the book and become interested enough to move further. even if its by picture books first and then whatever comes next. If a library didnt offer picture books, many children wouldnt be able to know and understand these stories to begine with, having not been given the chance for even a glimpse at them.

And much like a library caters both to the lowest and the highest common denominator, this audio library should be the same way. A friend of yours says "check out Umphry's, theyre fantastic!", but you know nothing of lossless. You see MP3s, download them, and love them. You start getting more, and are given the oportunity to learn about how to get the best sounding recording to listen to. Youre giving these people that dont know any better the chance to "browse", then youre giving them the oportunity to learn.

Educating the lowest common denominator doesnt start by eliminating them from the picture completely. Especialy in libraries.

It just seems like technology is going to prove mp3s unnecessary. Storage and bandwith are steadily getting cheaper and cheaper. Isn't it short sighted to adopt a lossy technology just so a small portion of the public has faster downloand times and so they won't have to use extremely simple software to deal with .shn and .flac? Do you want to be the ones who populated the world with picture books? You guys set the bar....take the high road.

As speeds get faster and harddrives get bigger, what are people being told? that they can download twice as much at half the speed. Theyre not being sold on quality over quantity. To think that just because, in theory, these file types could be rendered useless by your brand of rational (that i tend to mostly agree with) is just as short sighted. I mean, do you want to be the person that doesnt give a child a chance to read his favourite picture book, thereby eliminating his want to read the full story?

I will use the world wide web as a whole as another analogy. As someone that started taking web design a lot more serious lately, Ive learned about the differences between browsers and the uses of style sheets. Now, when making a web page, I conform to the W3C standards, and the page is built with the following mentality:

1> Content is easily readable and styled completely through style sheeting. this makes users with version 4 browsers and under, or users with specialty browsers due to disability, or users with portible machines that cant render the same styles, able to easily access the content with no problem. A message displaying a disclaimer on the unstyled page can be set to appear when no style is present do to these conditions.

2> Style is built from there, conforming to the style standards that have been set so all browsers can view the page equaly, and any change to the style can be made seemlessly without changing the content. As more users use up to date browsers and more users switch to the most up to date standards, the usage of these backwards compatable tools becomes less, but is always there to provide content first to whoever may need it.

The archives job as a library is exactly the same:

1> To provide content in a way that is accessable to all. This makes sure users with low speed connections, small harddrives, or portable devices that for now accept only MP3s are able to access the content with no problem. A disclaimer telling you exactly what youre downloading and how it is not complete can be made easily available for such circumstance.

2> Quality is built from there, comforming to whatever lossless standard is implemented, and any change to that standard can be reimplimented with no change to the lossless content. As more users use bigger harddrives and more users switch to faster speeds, the usage of lossy files becomes less, but is always there to provide content first to whoever may need it.

Opinions differ. A libraries job stays the same.

I'm a great example, I started off knowing very little about audio, but had to learn a little to start using the Archive and etree. It lead me to start taping and uploading back to the archive. If I hadn't had that incentive and could have just as easily downloaded mp3's, maybe I would have done nothing else.

Im also a great example of how the trading community taught me how to approach lossless audio, and Ive converted some of my friends from MP3 users to FLAC users. The difference is, I was brought in using MP3s, and I was given the oportunity to educate myself. If I wasnt brought in by the music and the availability of it, I may have just stuck with trading audio.

The road goes both ways.

This post was modified by Erich on 2003-12-10 19:10:00

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: Dec 10, 2003 10:56am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Universal Access to Human Knowledge

Picture books turned my son on to reading in the first place (flashback to him holding the Cat in the Hat- published in 1957- the *real* Cat in the Hat, not whatever is on every commercial lately ;) ).

Picture books are also appropriate for learning disabled people.

The point is to have choices available for a wide variety of people. For instance in a library we can read the Bible in tough King James, or easy Good News, or even picture book versions for kids.

"Case study" of a "learning disabled" person who could access *this* library, given the right access level for him: http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view.php?id=10441

In another analogy, it's why US buildings have wheelchair ramps as well as stairs these days.

This post was modified by Diana Hamilton on 2003-12-10 18:56:59

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: zachs Date: Dec 13, 2003 10:12pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Modify blanket mp3 statements...vision of the high road

Thanks for your responses! I wonder if it might be possible to achieve your goal of universal access while still preserving and fostering lossless audio trading. How about including low-fi streaming audio, to the extent that its possible. That would allow universal access to the material with out propagating the mp3 culture and trading. It would, as well, enhance the service for existing users instead of potentially discourgaging many, as the suggestion of mp3s seems to be doing.
To further encourage universal access and encourage lossless trading, you could link LMA users to etree. So, for instance, you've just listened to streaming audio for a source and like it and want to get it. In your download options could be a link to etree sources for the material. Moreover, you could enlist uploaders and downloaders alike to share their collections via etree. For instance, every time a person downloads, what they d/l could be added to their etree list....same for uploads. This does two great things. It fosters lossless trading and a little social responsibility. Again, this would be, I think, a real enhancement for existing users as well. I really love the contributions page that shows what you've put up. I forget I even have some it. Imagine if you also built an etree list everytime you download and could be propted or given the option to share what you've just gotten.
I was encouraged to join this discussion when I recieved a trade that had the blanket statement, "Do not encode to mp3" "Do not upload to archive.org" Wow! A little extreme, I'd admit. After reading the WHOLE thread on mp3s, I really agreed with using them at first. I mean, it gets the material into more hands....that seems good at first. Then I started thinking, take for instance the featured recording today, a Steve Kimock show (only b/c its the featured show, I'm not trying to get band specific). Steve has spent his whole life honing his guitar skills and is an admitted gear head when it comes to sound quality. Charlie Miller has spent lots of time and money trying to capture what Steve does and share it with the highest possible sound quality. Then it gets to archive.org and has the bits slashed by 2/3 into mp3????... you can't hear the beautiful tone of Steve's new Cerletti guitar or that Charlie added two more mics over the drums. And all just so that Junior Q Downloader can stick something else free on his mp3 player and possibly burn a few copies for his friends. The mp3 effort seems a bit in vain, especially considering that next year Junior will probably have a high speed connection and an 80 Gig harddisk player that plays .wav files. It just strikes me as a little short sighted. Again, with a bad analogy, its like PBS, around the time that cable tv came out, trying to decide how to increase their fuzzy rabbit eared reception at the edges of their broadcast areas. You can't argue that getting one more fuzzy station with your rabbit ears isn't good....it is. But, very soon, most people will have cable and even those people at the edges of broadcast reception will start getting satellite dishes. So, the issue then, seems to be where is your time better spent? Making the fuzzy area of reception bigger, or making the whole service better for everyone.
Remember, your audience, your users, are by definition, audophiles...not simply the general public. Another bad analogy.... imagine if you wanted to share Picasso paintings with the world on the internet, but all you can do is offer grainy thumbnails. While its better to see a grainy thumbnail than nothing, just let 'em look. Don't let em download it, print it and share it as a good representation of a Picasso. I'll never forget standing at the first Bonnaroo and listening to Ben Harper go on a rant about tapers and how he's never heard a recording of one of his shows that did the music justice. Well, increase the population of mp3 flying around and I'm sure he never will, and may for that reason decide not to allow taping any more.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: Dec 15, 2003 12:31am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Steve Kimock

a Steve Kimock show

BTW, just in case of missing the earlier announcement from Charlie:

http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view.php?id=10473

Steve's offering in FLAC and MP3.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: Dec 14, 2003 3:08am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Modify blanket mp3 statements

imagine if you wanted to share Picasso paintings with the world on the internet, but all you can do is offer grainy thumbnails.

Sigh, how many more times to beat the point in- the lossless versions here are *not* going away.

FYI Brewster's proposal:
http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view.php?id=10746

FWIW, would you like to share what item had a no-archive stamp on it? At least, what artist the taper taped? I'm just curious about the social dynamics of it all. Thanks!

This post was modified by Diana Hamilton on 2003-12-14 11:08:55

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Ethan P. Date: Dec 14, 2003 4:32am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Modify blanket mp3 statements

scwhilly on the 'groove is putting that on his stuff, flogging molly is one of the ones i saw he had taped (which is where the info is from)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: Dec 16, 2003 10:27am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Modify blanket statement- flogging molly

12/15: Thanks for the heads up, the gentleman may not have even heard about the opt-out idea on specific tapes yet. I gather fewer people read the recent proposal than the earlier unfortunate flamewar.

Meanwhile that band is not even OK'd for the LMA yet anyway.

12/16 Update: This one has been happily resolved by personal communication, in light of current ideas. Meanwhile FM is still pending anyway- but Schwilly's taping helped me pitch to 'em. :) Cross fingers on that...

This post was modified by Diana Hamilton on 2003-12-16 18:27:35

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: thoman8r Date: Dec 14, 2003 10:56pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Modify blanket mp3 statements

Thanks for the heads up, the gentleman may not have even heard about the opt-out idea on specific tapes yet. I gather fewer people read the recent proposal than the earlier unfortunate flamewar.

I think a lot fewer. The way this was originally handled left a lot to be desired (not talking about you Diana), and I'm afraid may have permanently scared off some tapers no matter what the outcome is.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: Dec 14, 2003 11:36pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Educate re current LMA proposal

You're right, there's probably a mixture of guys who would be negative no matter what vs. a group just wanting to "protect" their own tapes- the latter case now accomodated by current LMA idea.

For people in the second group not getting the message yet, I'd recommend anyone trader seeing a no-archive note in an info file give a nice heads up to the taper about the current thinking:

http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view.php?id=10746

No reason to have a misunderstanding from an old flamewar be perpetuated. Sound good?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: zachs Date: Dec 14, 2003 10:48pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Modify blanket mp3 statements....flogging on

Yeah, I'm sorry but I didn't get a good whack at the horse so I'm flogging on. Again, I joined the discussion about possibly offering up mp3s on LMA after finding this in a .txt file.

"Please do not encode this to MP3, or upload it to archive.org!
Don't use lossy formats! Stick to shn, ape, flac, or wav...
If you still feel the need to trade mp3's then
drink a beer and deal with it
or see a doctor and get rid of it!

Bob Wiely - [email snip- mod]
Sound Tribe Sector 9 Archive."

I was encouraged to post something because my intention once I got the show, was to upload it. To shed some light on why the prospect of this source being encoded to mp3 is so offensive to the taper, look at the source:

Source:
(Both on the same stand and just LoC)
Schoeps CMXY4v (x/y cards @75o) > V2 > VX Pocket V2 > Dell 7500 using wavelab 4.0g @ 24/48
(then I changed the bit depth to 16 for the mix)

And

Nak 100 / cp4 (shot guns aimed at the inside corners of the stacks)> Sonosax SX-M2 > Mod SBM-1 > D100 @ 16/48

They were then mixed using Vegas 4.0, resampled/fades added in Soundforge 6.0, tracked using cdwav, and shn'd using mkw

Transfer:
They were then mixed using Vegas 4.0, resampled/fades added in Soundforge 6.0, tracked using cdwav, and shn'd using mkw

He's spent lots of time and used lots of gear to produce a recording that smokes. Wouldn't you want that to come across to the people who hear it. Its certainly lost if you hear it as an mp3. I have the same dilema. I'm sitting here tranferring a show by a different artist that I'd like to post to LMA. I'm putting the finishing touches on it now to make sure that it sounds just right. If some percentage of the people that hear it, will get an mp3, what's the point. I could have just as well run through the crowd with a Mr. Microphone.
I understand that lossless formats would still be available, but honestly, I'd rather those few incremental downloaders that you get by offering mp3s, not get them. I'd rather that you offer them a streaming sample that they can't download which would encourage them to seek a lossless source via trading. I trade in a community of people where many don't have high speed. The ones that do have high speed download and offer it up as a b&p to the ones that don't. Why not encourage that. Its the glory of standing in front of the Picasso painting that we hope to share when we record live audio. A grainy thumbnail of a Picasso doesn't convey that. I have no greater joy in recording something than when someone sends me some mail saying that it sounded great! And, I love to share that. Its like telling a photographer that all of their photographs will be available as low resolution .jpeg downloads, just because they're easier to download.
Take a poll...email your uploaders and see who'd mind their uploads getting encoded. Wouldn't that be better than seeing how many you piss off with a trial period vs. how many incremental mp3 downloaders you get. After all if you loose the source material it doesn't really matter how many incremental downloads you would have had, right. Chickens fly the koop and doesn't matter what you would have liked to do with the eggs.

This post was modified by Diana Hamilton on 2003-12-15 06:48:32

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: Dec 14, 2003 10:47pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Time to stop flogging on

Moderator note: A patron replied to this post with 2 long posts containing some stuff beginning to be inflammatory. It's been fairly cool to this point, and it's pretty much time to move on now, not to keep flogging on. So I've taken the extreme judgment of deleting the 2 posts which could be considered baiting.

Everything's useful's been pretty much said. If you have specific, substantive comments relating directly to Brewster's proposal, please follow up directly to his post.
http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view.php?id=10746

OK folks?

Now re STS9 Archivist (note not a random taper for the band) thing, no futher comment need be made. Email has been sent for resolution, there are a couple of options in line with Brewster's proposal. I'd appreciate not complicating the situation further. Darnit.

This post was modified by Diana Hamilton on 2003-12-15 06:47:52

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Erich Date: Dec 14, 2003 11:36pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Time to stop flogging on

*sigh*

They took me a long time to think out and post, and none of it was intended as bait, with the exception of my thoughts on the disclaimer. That could be construed as inflammory if you wish, but the rest was not intended as so.

Maybe there should be a feature that would allow for the locking of a thread, so no new comments can be added regardless.

Accepted, but I dissagree.

This post was modified by Erich on 2003-12-15 07:36:47

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Erich Date: Dec 9, 2003 8:21pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: End audio-format trading > have mp3s too

(Erich are you listening? that's right it's not about a power trip brother)

Not all tapers feel they have a right to tell listeners how to listen. The ones that do though, I have to dissagree. The core of their intention is, as you said, to preserve their hard work for future listeners to enjoy. Thats nobel. Their method, unfortunatly, isnt.

If a taper gets pissed that his show is in MP3, why is that? I mean, no taper can be ignorant to the fact that its going to happen anyway. No taper can HONESTLY think that once the show is out there that they still have any say over it. So why is it that there were as many tapers taking personal offense at the IDEA of creating MP3s from their tapes? Especialy when they knew that this was a repository BENT on educating people the correct way to preserve the liniage. Well, cause youre doing the exact oposite of what they told you to do.

Again, if you boil it down to intent, you and I are on the same level. But just like we resolved in the last discussion, tapers have no rights over their recordings, unless they just dont release them, which is their perogative. So when you place a disclaimer telling someone how to listen to something, youre assuming a power over the recording you do not have. It may not be intentional, but thats what youre doing.

If you even look at the reaction of the most vocal tapers from the last discussion, you notice a lot of "my tape, that i spent that much money on, that i spent that much time on, so you cant convert my tapes to this or that, or else youd have to take down my tapes. you shouldnt bite the hand that feeds you (implying me)". Maybe Im the only person that sees that the emphasis wasnt exactly on preservation of the music.

I mean, explain to me something. take the poster thats about same level as you, who said:

I beleieve in the Tapers right to choose formats. I use MP3 alot, but I have never encoded a show to MP3 that the taper has expressly forbidden.

How does anyone rational idividual who has enough education to understand Lossless vs MP3, grant a taper, whos rights are none, the power to supercede any of his decisions on the matter?

Im aiming at the same goal as many of the people that I debate against with this topic. But I dont see people aiming at the real problem, just covering it up with a quick solution. Its like if youre emotionaly traumatized and youre just given medication to cover it up. Thats what people are doing by trying to repress MP3s completely, instead of trying to educate people on why they shouldnt trade mp3-sourced cds.

The average MP3 user doesnt even know that theres a better way to copy a cd than ripping to MP3 first. Are you going to tell them not to use MP3s, or are you going to show them the best way to copy a cd to get the most out of it?

This post was modified by Erich on 2003-12-10 04:21:53

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: thoman8r Date: Dec 9, 2003 11:00pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: End audio-format trading > have mp3s too

Not all tapers feel they have a right to tell listeners how to listen. The ones that do though, I have to dissagree. The core of their intention is, as you said, to preserve their hard work for future listeners to enjoy. Thats nobel. Their method, unfortunatly, isnt.

It's not about telling somehow how to listen to their music. If you download a show in shn and want to convert it to mp3 to listen to it, by all means go ahead. Nobody is going to try to stop you. The problem is when people (either deliberately or out of ignorance) take a show in mp3, decompress it, and trade it to someone without ever telling them about the mp3 lineage.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Erich Date: Dec 10, 2003 6:32am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: End audio-format trading > have mp3s too

Diana - Sorry if that seemed hot tempered, it was quite the oposite. I cant claim complete objectivity, but my observations werent made with an ill intent towards anyone, including tapers.

thoman8tor - yes, I agree with that, but then why is the approach made to crux MP3s as a whole and not just educate on why trading MP3 sourced shows are bad?

This post was modified by Erich on 2003-12-10 14:32:02

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: thoman8r Date: Dec 10, 2003 6:29am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: End audio-format trading > have mp3s too

thoman8tor - yes, I agree with that, but then why is the approach made to crux MP3s as a whole and not just educate on why trading MP3 sourced shows is bad?

Because some people just don't care. Some people will look at the file sizes and go, "hmm. I can download in whatever this shn thing is and it will take 4 hours or I can download it in mp3 which I already know how to use and it will take 1 hour. I'll just download the mp3s" and then proceed to trade that show because they just don't care about standards. The person they are trading with might though. Now he/she's stuck with an mp3 sourced show. That's who we are trying to protect. Or even worse, they don't realize it and start trading it themselves. Or they put it up on Kazaa or Furthur.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Erich Date: Dec 10, 2003 11:22am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: End audio-format trading > have mp3s too

Because some people just don't care. Some people will look at the file sizes and go, "hmm. I can download in whatever this shn thing is and it will take 4 hours or I can download it in mp3 which I already know how to use and it will take 1 hour. I'll just download the mp3s" and then proceed to trade that show because they just don't care about standards. The person they are trading with might though. Now he/she's stuck with an mp3 sourced show. That's who we are trying to protect. Or even worse, they don't realize it and start trading it themselves. Or they put it up on Kazaa or Furthur.

the people that dont care, wont care. So you end up with the start of your example being turned into "hmm. I can download in whatever this shn thing is and it will take 4 hours or I can download... nothing". In your opinion, this may be the best way to protect the trading pool. In my opinion, this only seperates more people from more music.

And people who trade MP3s may not know better. Thats why you try to teach them before hand. the ones that dont want to learn, wont, and seperating them from the music isnt going to prevent them from trading what the have or what they can get by kazaa to others.

And I know a lot of people turned on to different music because of Kazaa. Its just unfortunate that this music is unlabled or misabled half the time. thats why you put documentation in the ID3 tags, for people whos scope of knowledge only extends to kazaa and nothing else. "If you like this song, go here and get the full version". Youd be surprised how many people that would bring in if DMB fans did that, as just a quick example.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: Dec 10, 2003 11:30am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: End audio-format trading > have mp3s too

Youd be surprised how many people that would bring in if DMB fans did that

DMB needs *more* fans?! ;) (j/k)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: Dec 9, 2003 10:51pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: End audio-format trading > have mp3s too

Um Erich, I sense your posting temp may be on a rising track, it didn't go well with a fever last time (heh), so if you followup to more on this thread, remember to keep it even cooler, cool man. :)

I urge the same on anyone else, keep the emotional language cool, keep the posts calm and fully reasoned and you get your point across better. People respond to more heated words with less thought, and it all goes to h-e-double-toothpicks ;) (in fact if I said the other word, a reader *would* have a different reaction).

I don't think we'll all want to have to table *again* for a cooldown and restart.

Moderator-Mom ;)

This post was modified by Diana Hamilton on 2003-12-10 06:51:06

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: SFSpearit Date: Dec 9, 2003 8:27am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: End audio-format trading > have mp3s too

I believe in having both formats if the Taper and Band allows it. The moderator on the Etree Etrade list will not allow us to trade audio cds or post about them. SHN and Flac only. So why are we so worried about the Audio CD pool if we can not trade them on etree. We have a clean pool to drink from and those are SHN and FLAC. That pool will always be clean.

I beleieve in the Tapers right to choose formats. I use MP3 alot, but I have never encoded a show to MP3 that the taper has expressly forbidden. I do not think the LMA should convert SHNs to MP3, but if a taper wants to seed in MP3 and SHN, it should be allowed as long as SHN/FLAC also exists and the band is also cool with it. While this is not universal, I think it is the best way.

I got into trading Digital Music because of Live MP3s I downloaded. Those first MP3s brought a lot of joy to my life. It can not be a terrible thing. Not to mention they sound better than the hundreds of analog dead tapes I have.

I am glad this is being discussed. I believe the time has come.

...Diana, we will make a spearhead fan out of you yet!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: Dec 9, 2003 9:39am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: End audio-format trading > have mp3s too

The moderator on the Etree Etrade list will not allow us to trade audio cds or post about them. SHN and Flac only.

Wow, I didn't even know that! (I had to unsub from etrade a year or so ago because it was a bit of a time sink for me- but I'm still on etree list where discussion is "supposed" to happen, heh.)

BTW for interested people who might not know about the etree family of lists, see http://mail.etree.org/mailman/listinfo

(Tip- announce is a dead, a waste of time if you want the goods- but bittorrent list rocks right now.)

...Diana, we will make a spearhead fan out of you yet!

It's just a matter of having a chance to get some files and listen first! Again it's mainly a scheduling issue to arrange given other stuff I do online. ...With mp3s here, the time/listening barrier would be lower for me. ;)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: brandonfy2 Date: Dec 7, 2003 4:57am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: End audio-format trading > have mp3s too

I used to be a big fan of DMB before I got into bands like Ekoostik Hookah, Bela Fleck and the Flecktones, and The Recipe. I don't agree with the way most of the tapers act in that community but I do see where they're coming from.

DMB, like Phish and the Panic, have a very large fanbase that has been there since the early nineties, and these are the people that are there because they love not only the music, but the scene. Lately however, DMB has been gaining a lot of younger "pop" fans who come to the message boards and piss tapers and traders off (requesting shows three days before the actual show, demanding shows, screwing people on trades) because they don't care about whether the music gets spread or the quality is good, they just want a copy of the show they were at, and then they dissappear until the next time they go to a show. I think tapers in the DMB community may come off as being elitist, but I would probably act the same way if i had to deal with some of those idiots.

I don't think the DMB trading community is the way it is because of the tapers, it's just the direction the band has chosen to go. When a band goes from a jamband to a pop band, those two different groups of fans will clash.

This post was modified by brandonfy2 on 2003-12-07 12:54:51

This post was modified by brandonfy2 on 2003-12-07 12:57:56

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Jhudson844 Date: Dec 6, 2003 4:39pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: End audio-format trading > have mp3s too

" What bands are you taping?"

All of the good ones. :) Specifically I have taped and seeded a total of right around 100 shows to the archive from 22 bands/artists:

Acoustic Syndicate
Ancient Harmony
Barefoot Manner
Big Wu, The
Brock Butler
Donna the Buffalo
Driftwood Express
Garaj Mahal
Hobex
Jenni Alpert
John Butler Trio
Keller Williams
Leftover Salmon
Mood Cultivation Project
Moonshine Still
Mountain of Venus
New Monsoon
Perpetual Groove
Recipe, The
Steep Canyon Rangers
Tishamingo
Umphrey's McGee

"Are you taping/trading in particular subpools where there is a problem, or perceived problem, with traders in that pool "cheating" on your purity?"

I'm aware of the fact that not everyone is a quality snob like myself. I do my best to educate them on all things lossless. In addition to it improving the quality of sources in circulation, having people download from the archive greatly reduces the demand from people who want you to get them a copy personally via trade, B&P, etc. Would I prefer that people all go losless? Certainly. There are worse things in the world that people enjoying great music that has been degraded however, so I'm not going to bother burdening them with making my own "rules" like saying "don't encode to mp3" that they are going to ignore anyway. We have laws in our society that say "don't smoke pot", and 100 million out of 290 millions have tried it. Unlike laws like speed limits that are widely disregarded, smoking pot and converting shows to mp3 have not killed anyone yet.

mp3's can be a valuable resource for people who do not yet have access to broadband to get a quick and general idea of whether or not they will like that music so they can then set up a trade for a copy in a lossless format. It would seem like a waste of time for me to download an entire show in that format, but that's their decision.

If I am taping a band whose material I don't know that well and didn't get an exact setlist at the show, having mp3s available would allow me to possibly get the setlist worked out. Generally when I am in that situation I just post the show in another lame lossy format, real audio, to my site and give their fans a heads up to tune in on discussion boards/mailing lists, etc so they can help me with the setlist and in turn get it seeded faster for their downloading pleasure. Not all tapers have that option though so I think a lot of them would benefit from having easy access to mp3s to help fill out their setlists quickly.

Ultimately I won't lose sleep over this either way. I'd like to see as much variety of music on the archive as possible. On the one hand mp3 might help diversify, but if we have tapers who are so infuriated by the decision they pull their recordings it could also take away. I would suggest that if at all possible if a lossless copy of the show is available on the archive, that the option not be given to seed an mp3 source of it as well, but not vice versa so that if a lossy copy goes up first the community isn't deprived of a chance to download it in .shn or .flac. Not sure how difficult that would be to implement though.

I think of the archive as being exactly what it is, a giant library collection not limited to audio recordings. Any attempts to limit what goes into it is ultimately a form of censorship. I'm not going to be the one to encourage censorship no matter what my personal opinion is on having mp3s on the archive. The archive is an amazing resource and we are lucky to have it! Thanks again to all responsible for building and maintaining this place :)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or Staffbrewster Date: Dec 7, 2003 12:48am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: End audio-format trading > have mp3s too

A theory may be emerging on a way through this in the short term:
* pick a period of time for a test, say 2004
* respect individual tapers and uploaders who say "no audio versions" for particular shows
* after a time to let this all settle, convert other shows to 192Kb/sec MP3's
* see if it increases our user population significantly.
* strongly encourage lossless formats for uploads (education)
* openly discuss the evaluation of this system about this time next year.


You may ask-- why a test period of a year? well we are an archive and we think long term. Our culture makes us hesitant about taking things out of archives (images of burning come to mind), and restrictions that last forever. Forever is a long time.

In this pass, should we do high-resolution ogg's as well to try to push open standards?

What do you think?

-brewster


This post was modified by brewster on 2003-12-07 08:47:36

This post was modified by brewster on 2003-12-07 08:48:24

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: Dec 7, 2003 9:47pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Proposed LMA model

* respect individual tapers and uploaders who say "no audio versions" for particular shows

Brewster, was that a typo for "no lossy versions"? From what I see in Erich's followup, this might need some clarification.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or Staffbrewster Date: Dec 8, 2003 12:08am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Proposed LMA model

I was following Diana's suggestion of:
"Do Not Encode to Audio Format for Trading"
from this post:
http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view.php?id=10595

As I understand it, it is the ability to confirm that it is correct that is the key-- thus the centralized checksum on a lossless or losslessly compressed file.

-brewster

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: Dec 8, 2003 1:07am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Proposed LMA model needs refinement

Hmm, but the no-audio-format idea is something that can only pertain to trading practices, which would be in effect outside the bounds of the LMA, in the relevant trading pool(s) themselves.

If there's a no-audio-trading statement on something, it can't bear on the LMA holdings, because we're not mailing out audio discs to folks over here. :)

Indeed, I'm suggesting file stampers shift their demand from no-mp3 to no-audio, because it forces a stronger fix over at the level where the perceived problem is instead (the trading pool), where quality-degrading audio discs *are* handed around right now.

At the same time, the LMA is taken out of the equation. The newer type of filestamp (for those who do want to stamp files) gives a benefit to the larger world beyond the trading pool- the LMA is freed up to bring more choices to non-traders.


This post was modified by hamilton on 2003-12-08 09:07:16

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: nmculbreth Date: Dec 7, 2003 10:19pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Proposed LMA model

would this request still be honored after the one year trial period?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Erich Date: Dec 7, 2003 6:48pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: End audio-format trading > have mp3s too

Ive given it some thought, and, I cant agree with this method.

My other two posts illustrate how Im very interested in the long term education of the masses in regard to lossless. But, as I stated there, I just cant accept any method of action that will impose a heiarchy in the trading circles or impose a limit to a listener's right to choose. I mean, what % of people that just want an audio show they can get in the mail are going to be left out if tapers started appending their txt files with that disclaimer?

Then we go into the whole sociological aspect of it. Youve seen how the tapers get when you even hint at MP3s. Do you want that to start happening with audio? Going back to the DMB community example, people there are programmed to attack when others ask for MP3s. think of how it would be if people were all of a sudden told "no audio", and compound that with the idea that you want MP3s to be reintroduced as acceptible media. Im not saying people wont get used to it if that was the case, but im saying that its not conducive to a functional trading community.

And thats all just hypotheticals, too. I highly doubt people are going to induce a switch this big. I think anything of the sort needs to be a natural progression, much like how people are slowly switching to FLAC but not imeadiatly (incidently enough, the DMB community has gotten very little if any shows in FLAC).

I think the most idealistic of situations would be what phishlive.com offers, where youre given the choice of what to download, the documentation to educate you on what's what and how it works, and the lack of third party interference, ie txt disclaimers.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: nmculbreth Date: Dec 7, 2003 10:21pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: End audio-format trading > have mp3s too

i can't speak for others but i haven't moved to flac because it isn't supported by all operating systems (if memory serves correct it won't work in os 9). i use flac for 24 bit, but i haven't seem a good enough reason to switch for 16 bit.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: Dec 7, 2003 10:20pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Proposed LMA model

In this pass, should we do high-resolution ogg's as well to try to push open standards?

Sure, the people of Slashdot would cheer for instance. :)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: niuphan Date: Dec 8, 2003 1:03am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Proposed LMA model

With regards to this whole trial period of hosting lossy file formats...(or hosting lossy formats AT ALL)

I know there are several reasons people want MP3's hosted, but mostly it comes down to they either do not have enough bandwidth, or they don't have the patience to WAIT.

With that in mind, lets say the archive decides to permanently host MP3's (after the year trial). What about 3 or 5 or 10 years from now when bandwidth is no longer an issue? As you probably have noticed, over time bandwidth has gotten cheaper and faster. Before cable/DSL became affordable or even available we all used modems. Now the cost of a dial up ISP is virtually the same as cable/DSL.

Modems will be extinct (believe it or not), people will be forced into high speed connections. Eventually there will be enough bandwidth to the point where we can stream SHN/FLAC.

When bandwidth is no longer an issue in this world, all we will have is an archive half full of degraded audio recordings. (and no one downloading them)

If I'm not mistaken, didn't the archive just quadruple their bandwidth? (I'm sure it won't be the last time). A show can be downloaded in an hour or two! Lets look in to the future and consider the long term ramifications of hosting lossy formats on the archive.

Thoughts?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: Dec 8, 2003 1:48am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Proposed LMA model

Thoughts?

How about a discussion and evaluation after 1 year? ;)

This post was modified by hamilton on 2003-12-08 09:48:21

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: thoman8r Date: Dec 8, 2003 3:30am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Proposed LMA model

How about a discussion and evaluation after 1 year? ;)

Because by then the damage is done.

I agree 100% with what niuphan said and I'd just like to add a few more points:

1.) Not only will bandwidth become cheaper and more prevalent but it's very likely that advances in compression algorithms will severely decrease the size of lossless audio files.

2.) Increased popularity in 24-bit audio will make the disparity between lossless and lossy audio even greater.

Dave

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or Staffbrewster Date: Dec 8, 2003 1:23pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Proposed LMA model

It is interesting to me that already there are 3 approaches:
* uniform access-oriented formats
* some-and-some based on the wishes of tapers
* only taper-oriented formats

The access formats are more accessible both because they are smaller and streamable, but because they are more widely supported without plug-ins or downloads.

Therefore at one year the "some and some" compromise approach could stay where it is, or go full access, or go full trade-oriented based on how the technology and culture shifts.

An experimental some-and-some period seems to be as close to middle of the road we have.

-brewster